TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the ITAT that the sale price on the basis of signed documents is accepted by the department in the hands of sellers of the property or shareholders of Bluebird Software Private Limited. This Court concurs with the ITAT that indeed the AO could not have rejected the report of the DVO since it was at his instance that it was prepared. CIT (A) also appears to have missed this aspect while dismissing the appeal of the Assessee. In light of the report of DVO, there was no justification for the AO to have added ₹ 6,98,00,000/- to the income of the Assessee on the basis of the unsigned documents. The Court finds that the impugned order of the ITAT does not suffer from any legal infirmity and does not give rise to any substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agreement to Sell was found in terms of which Shri Virender Kumar Mittal, Shri Ravinder Kumar Mittal and M/s Bluebird Software Private Limited (Sellers) had agreed to sell the shareholding in the said company along with an industrial plot at Gurgaon to Shri Sanjeev Mahajan and M/s Nimitaya Promoters Private Limited as buyers for a total consideration of ₹ 21.96 crores. Additionally, a signed Agreement to Sell dated 15th June, 2007 was found in terms of which the sellers had agreed to sell 2,10,000 shares of M/s Blue Bird Software Private Limited along with factory premises to the Respondent and Shri Sanjeev Mahajan for total sale consideration of ₹ 8 crores. 7. Since two different values were found in different agreem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presumption could only be made under Section 132 (4A) of the Act and that too was rebuttable. The matter was referred to the DVO after the seizure of the aforementioned document. The DVO concluded that the property was worth ₹ 7.11 crores and the AO could not have disputed that finding. It was also noted by the ITAT that the sale price on the basis of signed documents is accepted by the department in the hands of sellers of the property or shareholders of Bluebird Software Private Limited. 10. This Court concurs with the ITAT that indeed the AO could not have rejected the report of the DVO since it was at his instance that it was prepared. The CIT (A) also appears to have missed this aspect while dismissing the appeal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
